The federal government has infringed the rights of states in several areas.

Resolved: A US president has power to rein-in the federal government.

A US president can veto excessive spending bills referred to him by rogue congresses.

A US president can speak out against the abuses performed by the federal government.

A US president can restrict, resize, or dissolve any of the executive-appointed offices and departments.

A US president can appoint secretaries, attorneys, and judges who will uphold the US Constitution.

Resolved: The vote cast by a citizen of the United States for president should be affected by the above resolutions.

Resolved: The above resolutions are not the only rod by which to measure a candidate.

Inquired: Which candidates understand and affirm the above resolutions?

Inquired: Which of those who understand and affirm the resolutions have an applicable plan for reforming the federal government back into legal limits?

Inquired: Which of those with a plan would be able to implement their plan without destroying the nation? In other words, would the government and country still be able to function, or govern and defend itself?

Ron Paul is almost completely a libertarian. He offers very conservative principles to the disillusioned, betrayed conservative grass roots. His speeches are full of the resolutions above. But I have not heard him describe how electing him as president would make a difference. What changes would he make, and how would he make them? How would he deal with the fall-out? I notice in my own life that God, who certainly knows all of my shortcomings and sins, will prune them a little at a time, so that I can still function. I believe this is because He loves me, not just the mold of perfection. I doubt that Ron Paul would have the patience to reform the government in a way that would leave a working system in place. On the other hand, he has been in the legislature for some time without accomplishing anything aside from building a record for himself (not even a name for himself until he publicized it by running for president).

Rudy Giuliani does not seem interested in restricting the government at all. He is a social moderate, who therefore thinks government involvement in social matters are justified. (On a side note I do not think that murder is a social issue; neither is abortion.)

Mitt Romney is a businessman. He has shown his capabilities as an executive. Making an organization run efficiently and productively is his record. In business, you do not want to cut the influence of your company, or reduce profits. Yet in government, that is just what needs to be done.

Though Huckabee was a pastor more than a businessman, he was also an executive of a state. As governor of Arkansas did he exhibit any tendencies toward reforming the government? Granted, he was working with a congress of democrats. Is there anything he is saying now that indicates he will reform Washington?

Are these men just going to treat symptoms? Throw more money at problems? Cut out the cancer so deeply that you’ve amputated vital organs? Must we the voters be content with a man of the hour, who can get us through the next four years, but will leave the federal government unchecked in its decent toward tyranny?

What do any of you readers know about these candidates or the others running? Are my assessments wrong? Do any of the other candidates meet the resolutions with strength, vision, and confidence? Can you reassure me that a vote for Huckabee, which I am intending to cast, will be for the good of America?

Can we the people do anything now to prepare the field of candidates in the future?